My dog can beat up your cat.

 

Best guess at this time? 2010,2011 production for a 2011,2012 car. Power figures, at least 285 at the flywheel.

Paul.

 

the 16x will be capable of 300, it's up to Mazda to determine what best suites the vehicle.

 

300 would just be like damn. 300hp from Mazda.

 

keywords: 'capable'.

 

I know, it is just something that would really draw some attention to Mazda. Selling a naturally aspirated 300hp engine.

 

They really need the magical '300' for marketing purposes but accuracy at some level is paramount for long term reputation. I'd love to see a touch more than 300 actually.

Paul.

 

In all actuality, they need to go dry sump, turn the engine on it's side, mount it parallel to the rear axle and have a Mid-Rear engine RX-7 coupe with 300hp.

 

why transverse? longitudinal is far better.
________
Live Sex Webshows

 

Thanks Paul. Agreed. "300" is needed for marketing purposes. "300" is like 300 Spartans.

 

with a lower compression ratio than the Renesis, 1/2 bar of boost, low weight, and good gearing/suspension they'd be spanking M3s.

Oh, wait a minute, it would also blow away Mustangs.

Scratch that idea, since Mazda is Ford's bitch.

 

10:1 isn't a high compression ratio, you don't want to go too low because you lose mid range, you just gain more boost ability for maximum top end.

300hp n/a rx-8 would kill M3s. They already out handle and under weigh them, now the same hp numbers?!

 

Reading the forum, I've noticed that some people use 89 and 87 octane ratings in their car and it works fine as long as the pinging isn't out of control. Given the larger size of the new 16x, could it have a lower compression and therefore only use regular octane like 87 versus the "recommended 91+" that's on the current Renesis, and still make more power and torque? Then maybe the Mazdaspeed or what not could use higher compression rotors on the 16x to get more power if they don't ever want to go FI. Would this be possible, or am I thinking too much like a piston head?

 

There is actually no appreciable power difference on a rotary between 9.0:1 and 11.0:1 compression. It's all about the same. Above 11.0:1 you actually LOSE power on a rotary!

 

Gotcha. I always wondered if the rotary was different in the compression aspect of things. Thanks rotarygod.

 

The thing that most people don't realize about raising the compression ratio too high on rotaries is that unlike piston engines, we don't jsut compress air. We also flow it through the engine. All the air must physically move through the rotor dishes as it is getting compressed. This doesn't happen in a piston engine. The air for the most part stays in one place. If the compression gets too high in a rotary, we now have the problem that airflow through these faces gets to be too difficult and we start incruing greater and greater losses. I've heard the argument that forced induction sends tons of air through there just fine. My response to that is two fold. First we are compressing the air. We get more in teh same amount of space. Second we are actually adding to the quantity of air which means more oxygen which means a bigger more powerful bang to overcome any losses. On a naturally aspirated engine, you aren't adding any more air. You are just trying to move it through a smaller and smaller area when you raise compression. The sweetspot on a rotary is between 9.0:1 and 11.0:1 compression.

 

if they wait until 2010--2011 it is going to be too late for a gasoline powered rotary engine to sell to any measurable amount of customers.
olddragger

 

Never underestimate the power of Mazda's RX Sales Prevention Team!!!

 

These are true. It is like Mazda fights itself. Logical things that you would think would be done are not.

Mazda needed to do FI like yesterday. They have shot themselves in the foot. Especially now that the ECU reflashers are here. All that FI money will go to Pro-Tuners. What is the point of Mazdaspeed anyway???

What will be interesting is FI on their present modified engine that corrected design flaws versus the 16X. In others word will you have Pro-tuner FI on the present renny/modified renny out doing the 16X in terms of HP and at equal MPG?

As is the case with the uglified 2009 RX-8 (though this is not the case for the Mazdaspeed front and it did increase the value of the old RX-8s), I'm concerned they would screw up with the looks of a 2010-11 model RX-8. So a new engine in a ugly *** car, will not be helpful.

Also, selling a modified version of the present rotary engine, seems like they would delay putting out the 16X. Even 2011 could be optimistic.

Bottom damn line, the RX-8 needs to be keeping up with its near competition like the 350Z.

The RX-8 needed 300HP yesterday, still needs to be at 300HP today, and needs to be up in the 330HP+ range in the future. By the time the 16X comes out, other cars in its class could be blowing it away in 0-60 to 1/4 mile times.

What keeps the RX-8 in the hunt is/was its cool looks and that back seat. 2 more things that Mazda may just f*ck up, in addition to a preference of underpowering the car or allowing Mazdaspeed to be lazy asses.

That Mazda executives can't seem to get "it" and insistence on new weird colors (like beige) and ugly plastic grille mods speaks volumes.

If Mazda puts that 16X engine in a semi-automatic RX-8, that gets over 300HP and near 20MPG, that has/keeps its looks and that back seat then all is forgiven. However, don't count on it, because that would be way too much like right for Mazda executives to handle.

 

lightbulb it my head went off!!!!

thanks fred.

beers

 

I'd love to see 320 hp, actually. That would mean 200 hp/liter from an NA engine.

Ok, now back to reality

 

i think he means on its side like my avatar... lower center of gravity, spark plugs on top, intake and exhaust ports on the bottom.

i've been thinking bout this myself, it would allow more freedom for variable intake length tuning since you could "wrap" the intake runners around the engine towards the top...

 

I say we need 300hp today. By the time 16x comes out, we'll need the 3-rotor engine from the Furai.

 

I'd say by the time the 16x comes out, we'll need it in the Furai rather than the RX-? to get any notice of it.

 

i dont think it is as much up to Mazda as it is emissions. thats what kind of killed the renesis's power and gas mileage